{ "id": 4302656, "name": "ANDRE L. KILPATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Kilpatrick v. Department of Employment Security", "decision_date": "2010-04-27", "docket_number": "No. 1\u201409\u20140708", "first_page": "90", "last_page": "95", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "401 Ill. App. 3d 90" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "132 Ill. App. 3d 853", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3441030 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "855", "parenthetical": "\"A teacher's eligibility is determined on a weekly basis. During any week in which a teacher has a contract or reasonable assurance of employment during the upcoming school year, the teacher is not eligible to receive unemployment compensation\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/132/0853-01" ] }, { "cite": "339 Ill. App. 3d 858", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2467898 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "862", "parenthetical": "instructor's status as full-time or substitute teacher is irrelevant; application of section 612 depends on whether educational instructor has a reasonable assurance of future work" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/339/0858-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 Ill. App. 3d 471", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3518523 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475-76" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/116/0471-01" ] }, { "cite": "211 Ill. App. 3d 1070", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2527005 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1081", "parenthetical": "instructor's employment or lack of employment during summer months is irrelevant because section 612 of the Act was \"designed to address the common academic practice of instructors not teaching during the summer months\"" }, { "page": "1073, 1080-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/211/1070-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 Ill. App. 3d 958", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3648506 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "962" }, { "page": "962" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/160/0958-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 L. Ed. 746", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "766" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "333 U.S. 364", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6157998 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "395" }, { "page": "542" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/333/0364-01" ] }, { "cite": "228 Ill. 2d 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5706718 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "211" }, { "page": "211" }, { "page": "211" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/228/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 Ill. 2d 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 29956 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "393-95" }, { "page": "395" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/198/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 Ill. App. 3d 522", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4279457 ], "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "524-25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/384/0522-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 572, "char_count": 14152, "ocr_confidence": 0.766, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14483045150508775 }, "sha256": "d477334f12829c358a15b1449d40a0a7e4a9cc677ffbea7fa8ed4b9ae277b2f6", "simhash": "1:5185719b4afce38b", "word_count": 2239 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:46.574655+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ANDRE L. KILPATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KARNEZIS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPro se plaintiff, a college teacher, appeals from the circuit court\u2019s order that affirmed the decision of the Board of Review (Board) of the Illinois Department of Employment Security (the Department) to deny him unemployment benefits for the 2008 summer school session. On appeal, plaintiff contends that he was not precluded from such benefits under section 612 of the Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (820 ILCS 405/612 (West 2008)), which governs academic personnel. We affirm.\nSection 612, which is the basis of the challenged decision, provides that academic personnel are not eligible for unemployment benefits between academic years or terms and states, in relevant part:\n\u201c2. An individual shall be ineligible for benefits, on the basis of wages for service in employment in any capacity *** performed for an institution of higher learning, *** during a period between two successive academic years or terms, if the individual performed such service in the first of such academic years or terms and there is a reasonable assurance that the individual will perform such service in the second of such academic years or terms.\u201d 820 ILCS 405/612(A)(2) (West 2008).\nPlaintiff has been employed by City Colleges of Chicago (City Colleges) at Kennedy-King College since August 2004 as an adjunct chemistry instructor on a contract basis during the fall and spring terms, and as a part-time adult-education math instructor on an hourly basis during the fall, spring and summer terms. In 2008, spring term ended on May 10. Plaintiff was scheduled to teach an adult-education class during the summer session, from June 4 to July 23. Fall term began on August 25.\nIn May 2008, plaintiff filed for unemployment benefits, apparently based on his reduced work hours during the summer session. In an adjudication summary, plaintiff indicated that he has a \u201cwritten, verbal or implied agreement to work for [Kennedy-King College] in the next academic year, term, or period immediately following the vacation period, or holiday recess.\u201d City Colleges filed a protest, stating that plaintiff was \u201ca part-time instructor\u201d who was scheduled to return in the fall semester. City Colleges further observed that the spring session had ended on May 10, 2008, and the fall semester would start on August 25, 2008.\nThe claims adjudicator agreed with City Colleges and found plaintiff ineligible for benefits because plaintiff had earned wages in employment from an academic institution and had reasonable assurance of returning in the fall as he had done in the previous four years.\nPlaintiff applied for reconsideration of the denial of his unemployment benefits, stating that he was not seeking \u201cunemployment in between semesters as an unemployed person\u201d but, rather, was \u201cworking reduced hours and should be entitled to unemployment.\u201d\nAt a telephonic hearing on July 28, 2008, plaintiff stated that since 2004 he has worked each summer as a part-time adult-education teacher, up until July 23, 2008. Beginning in the summer of 2007, plaintiffs hours for the adult education position were reduced from 24 hours per week to 7 hours per week. Full-time teachers teach the non-adult classes in the summer, and if there are extra teaching positions open, they are given to the adjunct faculty members. Since 2004, plaintiff has been rehired for the fall semester at the end of each summer term, and he expected to return to work in August 2008.\nPlaintiff framed the issue as being whether or not his claim was filed \u201cbetween successive terms,\u201d as used in section 612 of the Act. Plaintiff argued that he did not file his claim \u201cbetween successive terms\u201d because at institutions of higher education summer is included as a \u201cterm.\u201d While acknowledging that he had a reasonable assurance of being reemployed as an adjunct instructor in August, plaintiff argued he had no reasonable assurance that he would be employed as an adjunct in the summer because \u201cof low availability of classes\u201d for adjunct instructors. \u201cFull-timers\u201d are given regular summer classes by the school, and if there are any classes left over, they are given to the adjunct faculty members. Therefore, although plaintiff teaches adult-education classes during the summer, he considers himself involuntarily unemployed with respect to the adjunct faculty position. Plaintiff s basis for claiming unemployment benefits was based on bis working reduced hours as an adult-education instructor during the summer. The referee noted that plaintiffs earnings during the summer were below the weekly benefit amount of $310 per week, constituting a \u201cconstructive layoff.\u201d\nThe hearing referee affirmed the claims adjudicator\u2019s denial of benefits, finding that plaintiff was ineligible for benefits under section 612 of the Act because he \u201cworked for [City Colleges] during the 2007-2008 academic year and will return to teach during the 2008-2009 academic year.\u201d\nPlaintiff appealed the decision to the Board, reiterating the argument he made during the telephonic hearing. The Board found the Referee\u2019s decision \u201csupported by the record and the law,\u201d incorporated it as part of the Board\u2019s decision, and affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits.\nPlaintiff subsequently filed a complaint for administrative review where the circuit court affirmed the Board\u2019s decision.\nOn appeal, plaintiff contends that he was wrongfully denied unemployment benefits because he was unemployed \u201cduring an academic term.\u201d Plaintiff argues that because higher educational institutions consider summer term as an academic term, plaintiff had applied for benefits \u201cduring an academic term,\u201d rather than \u201cbetween academic terms,\u201d and is thus entitled to unemployment benefits.\nWe review the decision of the Board, not that of the circuit court, and defer to the expertise of the administrative agency. Village Discount Outlet v. Department of Employment Security, 384 Ill. App. 3d 522, 524-25 (2008); AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380, 393-95 (2001). Administrative agency decisions involving mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under a \u201cclearly erroneous\u201d standard of review. Cinkus v. Village of Stickney Municipal Officers Electoral Board, 228 Ill. 2d 200, 211 (2008). The standard is only met where the reviewing court is left with the \u201c 1 \u201cdefinite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.\u201d \u2019 \u201d Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 211, quoting AFM Messenger, 198 Ill. 2d at 395, quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 92 L. Ed. 746, 766, 68 S. Ct. 525, 542 (1948).\nAs plaintiff correctly states, the purpose of the Act is to provide compensation benefits to an unemployed individual in order to relieve the economic distress caused by involuntary unemployment. Kelley v. Department of Labor, 160 Ill. App. 3d 958, 962 (1987). However, contrary to plaintiffs assertions, we find that section 612 of the Act precludes him from receiving unemployment benefits.\nThe record shows that since August 2004, plaintiff has worked at Kennedy-King College as an adjunct chemistry instructor during the fall and spring terms, and as a part-time adult-education math instructor during the fall, spring and summer terms. In 2008, the spring term ended on May 10. Plaintiff was scheduled to teach an adult-education class during the summer session, from June 4 to July 23. Fall term began August 25. During the summer months, plaintiffs work hours as an adult-education teacher were reduced from 24 to 7. Although plaintiff argues that the reduction in hours renders him \u201cinvoluntarily unemployed\u201d because his wages are \u201cless than his weekly benefit amount,\u201d we note that plaintiff is in fact receiving income for his summer work during June and July, in contrast to educators who are only employed during the spring and fall. See Campbell v. Department of Employment Security, 211 Ill. App. 3d 1070, 1081 (1991) (instructor\u2019s employment or lack of employment during summer months is irrelevant because section 612 of the Act was \u201cdesigned to address the common academic practice of instructors not teaching during the summer months\u201d).\nPlaintiff maintains that he is entitled to benefits because he applied for unemployment benefits during the \u201csummer term,\u201d as opposed to \u201cin between terms,\u201d and thus section 612 of the Act does not apply to him. In Doran v. Department of Labor, 116 Ill. App. 3d 471 (1983), we examined whether the 8-week summer period following the end of the 39-week regular term constitutes a period of unemployment for which the Act was intended to supply benefits, or was a period between two successive academic years within the meaning of the Act. The plaintiff in Doran was employed as a teacher at an alternative school for girls by the Board of Education of the City of Chicago. For 10 years, the plaintiff had taught on a 47-week schedule; the regular 39-week year, plus 8 weeks during the summer. In 1980, the plaintiff was told that she would no longer be employed for the eight-week summer session, and she subsequently filed for unemployment benefits for that period. After the claims adjudicator determined that she was not entitled to benefits under section 612 of the Act, the plaintiff filed an application for reconsideration, arguing that the 8-week summer period constituted a portion of her regular 47-week academic term and was not a period \u201cin between\u201d academic terms. The referee found that during the period in question the plaintiff was a teacher in between academic terms and had a reasonable assurance of returning to work at the start of the successive term. The Board of Review affirmed the referee\u2019s decision, and the plaintiff appealed. In examining the school code and academic calender, we found that the \u201cacademic term intended by the legislature was the regular term of 39 weeks designated by the school calender,\u201d and accordingly found that the summer period was between academic terms, thus making the plaintiff ineligible for unemployment benefits under section 612 of the Act. Doran, 116 Ill. App. 3d at 475-76.\nWe find Doran persuasive as applied to the instant case and conclude that plaintiff applied for unemployment benefits \u201cin between academic terms,\u201d as opposed to \u201cduring academic terms.\u201d Although plaintiff urges us to construe the summer session as part of the regular academic schedule at Kennedy-King College, according to the \u201cAcademic Calender\u201d document supplied by plaintiff:\n\u201cThe Kennedy-King College academic year is divided into two eighteen week semesters: fall, beginning in late August and ending just before Christmas, and spring, from mid January to mid May. The summer session is an eight week term (late June through early August).\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe calender offers no support for plaintiff\u2019s position, as it clearly states that the \u201cacademic year\u201d includes two semesters, fall and spring, and differentiates the academic year from \u201csummer session.\u201d Therefore, in accordance with Doran, we are not persuaded that the summer session was intended to be included as an \u201cacademic term\u201d within the meaning of section 612 of the Act.\nIn addition, and perhaps most importantly, the appellate court has repeatedly found that the key inquiry regarding whether an academic instructor is entitled to unemployment benefits is whether he or she has a \u201ccontract or reasonable assurance\u201d of future work. Marzano v. Department of Employment Security, 339 Ill. App. 3d 858, 862 (2003) (instructor\u2019s status as full-time or substitute teacher is irrelevant; application of section 612 depends on whether educational instructor has a reasonable assurance of future work); Campbell, 211 Ill. App. 3d at 1073, 1080-81 (part-time college teacher who was denied employment during the summer was correctly denied benefits because he had reasonable assurance of returning to work during the fall term); Davis v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor, 132 Ill. App. 3d 853, 855 (1985) (\u201cA teacher\u2019s eligibility is determined on a weekly basis. During any week in which a teacher has a contract or reasonable assurance of employment during the upcoming school year, the teacher is not eligible to receive unemployment compensation\u201d).\nThe fact that plaintiff\u2019s hours as an adult-education instructor are reduced during the summer term, arguably rendering him technically unemployed, does not change the fact that he has always had a \u201creasonable expectation\u201d of returning for work in the fall. Plaintiff acknowledges that since 2004, he has had both a contract and \u201creasonable assurance\u201d that he would be rehired as an adjunct instructor at the beginning of the fall semester in August. Indeed, since August 2004, plaintiff has worked as an adjunct chemistry instructor during the spring and fall and as a part-time adult-education math instructor during the spring, fall and summer.\nGiven the circumstances, we do not believe that plaintiff is entitled to receive unemployment benefits \u201cto relieve the economic distress which was caused by involuntary employment.\u201d Kelley, 160 Ill. App. 3d at 962. We agree with defendants that it cannot be the legislative intent that an academic employee receiving income for teaching during the summer months should be entitled to unemployment benefits, while other academic employees without employment or income during the summer are not.\nAfter reviewing the record and considering the issues raised by plaintiff, we cannot say that we are left with the \u201cdefinite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.\u201d See Cinkus, 228 Ill. 2d at 211. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the trial court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nCUNNINGHAM, EJ., and THEIS, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KARNEZIS" } ], "attorneys": [ "Andre L. Kilpatrick, of Chicago, appellant pro se.", "Lisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Jerald S. Post, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appel-lees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ANDRE L. KILPATRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 1\u201409\u20140708\nOpinion filed April 27, 2010.\nRehearing denied June 3, 2010.\nAndre L. Kilpatrick, of Chicago, appellant pro se.\nLisa Madigan, Attorney General, of Chicago (Michael A. Scodro, Solicitor General, and Jerald S. Post, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for appel-lees." }, "file_name": "0090-01", "first_page_order": 106, "last_page_order": 111 }